This page has been updated.

These are the slides I used.

This debate was intended to be free and fair, between those who think the proposal is a good idea and those think otherwise (guess where I sat). Free to attend on Zoom, I hoped as many people would come as could at a Monday lunchtime (05 Dec). Although we had room for 500, that turned out to be well over-adequate but people did have the opportunity.

Indeed, so did IFoA, who consciously chose not to attend for reasons they considered stood up to public scrutiny. Although I asked non-Council members who favoured the proposal to come along and explain why, noone did, which was really disappointing. In the end, one of the attendees offered a couple of possibly valid reasons, which were somewhat more convincing than the official version. As there is little point, I am not publishing them.

The chat was neither moderated nor monitored; I am not a publisher! Attendees could either enter questions in the Q&A, which in the end wasn’t monitored (because noone from IFoA was there) or raise hands and be unmuted, one at a time. Unlike IFoA webinars, all attendees could see all of the chat and the Q&A entries, which were not saved; the webinar was not recorded. So far as I could tell, everyone who wished to speak did so.

Not surprisingly, the general tenor of discussion was against the proposal. It would have been so much better if supporters had attended.